36 replies to this topic

[Simon]

All, this just popped into the mail box today.

http://www.007magazi...07_magazine.htm

Duly purchased. Looking for forward to receiving.

Gaham, you seem to be working apace on these. Is there a taster for what your continued output may include - providing sales of course make it worth your while.

[007 Magazine]

All, this just popped into the mail box today.

http://www.007magazi...07_magazine.htm

Duly purchased. Looking for forward to receiving.

Gaham, you seem to be working apace on these. Is there a taster for what your continued output may include - providing sales of course make it worth your while.

007 MAGAZINE ARCHIVE FILES: The Living Daylights/Licence To Kill

http://www.007magazi...able_issues.htm

Many thanks for your continued support Simon!

I now like to surprise readers with the content of each new issue as and when it's available to order, particularly as I have found in the past that the schoolboys over at MI6 confidential/declassified etc. have purposely published something similar in subject matter to my advertised magazine before I publish in a deliberate attempt to sabotage my sales.

Suffice to say I have many other publications in the pipline for the rest of this year and 2012 - and beyond - all packed with a variety of interesting rare images and articles that are exclusive to my 007 MAGAZINE publications.

I have been making my living publishing 007 MAGAZINE since 1988, therefore the sales have always, and continue to, make it worth my while.

Graham Rye
007 MAGAZINE & ARCHIVE Limited
[email protected]
www.007magazine.com

[ggl]

Congratulations for your 007magazines, Mr. Rye. I´m "with you" since the 90´s and I can say that your magazine is still the best.
I´m reading now the Dr. NO special and, as always, learning things when one would thought that he knew everything!
Go on with your great work and greetings from Spain...

[Simon]

Many thanks for your continued support Simon!

I now like to surprise readers with the content of each new issue as and when it's available to order, particularly as I have found in the past that the schoolboys over at MI6 confidential/declassified etc. have purposely published something similar in subject matter to my advertised magazine before I publish in a deliberate attempt to sabotage my sales.

Suffice to say I have many other publications in the pipline for the rest of this year and 2012 - and beyond - all packed with a variety of interesting rare images and articles that are exclusive to my 007 MAGAZINE publications.

I have been making my living publishing 007 MAGAZINE since 1988, therefore the sales have always, and continue to, make it worth my while.

Graham Rye
007 MAGAZINE & ARCHIVE Limited
[email protected]
www.007magazine.com

'Nuff said.

Cool.

I look forward to the rest of the year and beyond.

Cheers.

[Simon]

A superb issue, full of insight, research, interesting arguments and all very well constructed.

A particularly interesting piece about the certification of LTK and the various avenues the producers took to secure a wider audience for its product without compromising the integrity of its message. Very well researched.

I do think in Luke Williams, the writer for these and a number of previous pieces in the magazine, that Mr Rye has found the ideal writing partner for his product. Long may it continue.

Excellent.

[zencat]

Ordered. Looking forward to this issue. OO7 back in the day did an amazing job covering the Dalton films, so I expect there will be some gems here.

Looking forward to a new issue of the regular OO7 (#55) with coverage of you know what (Skyfall if you don't know what). Also Carte Blanche. As much as I enjoy the archives, I like building an archive of current news via OO7.

[Major Tallon]

The current issue of 007 Magazine Archive Files is devoted to Timothy Dalton's two James Bond movies, "The Living Daylights," and "Licence To Kill." The content, both photographs and text, is very good, and there's a particularly wonderful appraisal of Dalton's contribution to the world of Bond by Luke Williams.

Very highly recommended.

[Simon]

Merge with this?

http://debrief.comma...icence-to-kill/

[zencat]

Merged.

[zencat]

Wow! What a joy this issue is! Not only are the photos great, but the articles themselves are OUTSTANDING. The entire mag is written by Luke Williams who obviously is a giant Dalton fan. I love that he makes the case that LTK is actually "the best Bond movie ever" and, you know, he might have a point! But I especially love his article about LTKs battle with the British censor to get a 15 rating. This is all new information to me, thoroughly researched and brilliantly written. This might be one of the best articles ever produced for OO7 Magazine, and is the kind of true insider info that can only be found in an unofficial publication. Bravo, bravo, bravo. I also wasn't aware of the tensions between John Barry and a-ha. I learned a lot from this mag, and that's saying something.

I just wish Luke wouldn't make so many of his points by bashing Roger Moore. Every page of his TLD overview contains a swipe at Roger and his films. It's just really hard for a Roger fan like me to read. But I guess hating on Roger, and especially Moonraker, is also in the great tradition of OO7 Magazine, so...

Great work.

[lgw007]

I'd like to thank Zencat and others here for their kind words about the Dalton issue I wrote.

The LTK censorship piece was very close to my heart - in 1989 I was 12 and devastated not to be able to go and see Licence To Kill in the cinema and it had always puzzled me why BATMAN was granted a 12 and LTK was lumbered with a 15. Now I know the full story!!!

I'm also sorry, Zencat, if I upset you with my comments about Roger! You know what, as a PERSONALITY and a MAN I ADORE him. And I enjoy his films MUCH more than the Brosnans, for example. Roger always did a decent job, I think it's the producers who lost the plot during his era.

Anyways, best wishes everyone - and keep following 007 Magazine - I know GR has lots of exciting stuff in the pipeline.

Luke W.

[Simon]

Hi Luke, nice to have you around here.

Just to echo zen's words, again this really was a cracking issue.

Can I ask what you do for a living, and if it happens to have anything to do with reportage or 'things entertainment'?

zen - I am surprised you weren't aware of the a-ha / Barry tensions. I am sure this has been pretty well documented on various dvd specials and other written articles. I think there was also a Bond music TV special where the parties were interviewed, although in retrospect, perhaps this did not make it across the Atlantic. Anyway, clearly surprises abound.

[lgw007]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for your kind welcome.

I work as an English teacher - although I did spend around six years as a journalist from about 1998 until 2004, mainly sports rather than entertainment - although cinema has always been a love of mine - especially Bond!

Doing these articles for 007 has been a real pleasure. I've missed the process of writing - although not the grind of day-to-day sports journalism - as great a job as it is working long evenings and most Saturdays and Sundays became a real lifestyle impediment!

I'd be interested, and I know Graham would be too, what features people would like to see in future 007 mags.

Hi Luke, nice to have you around here.

Just to echo zen's words, again this really was a cracking issue.

Can I ask what you do for a living, and if it happens to have anything to do with reportage or 'things entertainment'?

zen - I am surprised you weren't aware of the a-ha / Barry tensions. I am sure this has been pretty well documented on various dvd specials and other written articles. I think there was also a Bond music TV special where the parties were interviewed, although in retrospect, perhaps this did not make it across the Atlantic. Anyway, clearly surprises abound.

Edited by lgw007, 14 November 2011 - 11:21 AM.

[Simon]

Is that six, or sixteen years? The maths don't add up.

As for articles, I have submitted a couple along the lines of what I would like to read more of. I am not sure that they have a place in the magazine, but if they do, I am happy for them to be edited - or completely rewritten if needs be.

Generally, and this is in complete contrast to your articles, I favour the in depth article about finite points as opposed to sweeping retrospectives about whole films. I know your articles make my point somewhat redundant because I would like to read more of them. So for example, if anyone had the ability to write an article on why and how the dart wrist gun (for want of a better example) came to be designed and produced - it is that sort of thing that one will never be able to read elsewhere that I think interests me, and is the preserve of those thoroughly interested in the series/canon to address.

[MarkA]

I'm also sorry, Zencat, if I upset you with my comments about Roger! You know what, as a PERSONALITY and a MAN I ADORE him. And I enjoy his films MUCH more than the Brosnans, for example. Roger always did a decent job, I think it's the producers who lost the plot during his era

.
I have generally the same feelings about Moore but I am not sure the producers were just reflecting Moore's particular concept of Bond and not the other way round. He has stated many times he couldn't take the character seriously, that is why his portrayal (in my opinion) and the films that suroound it went so wrong. But as a person an all round good egg, and I love him as the Saint.

[David Schofield]

I'm also sorry, Zencat, if I upset you with my comments about Roger! You know what, as a PERSONALITY and a MAN I ADORE him. And I enjoy his films MUCH more than the Brosnans, for example. Roger always did a decent job, I think it's the producers who lost the plot during his era

.
I have generally the same feelings about Moore but I am not sure the producers were just reflecting Moore's particular concept of Bond and not the other way round. He has stated many times he couldn't take the character seriously, that is why his portrayal (in my opinion) and the films that suroound it went so wrong. But as a person an all round good egg, and I love him as the Saint.

I think MarkA is right - Rog just could not take Bond seriously as he has gone on record as saying, not a particularly positive starting point for an interpretation of the Fleming character, IMO.

That said, it must also have been clear to Harry and Cubby what they were getting with Rog (isn't there a wonderful annecdote from Michael Caine that Rog didn't watch the "Fight of the Century" - Frazier v Ali 1971 - unlike the rest of the world because Rog detested violence and was pascifist?!), and that Rog was merely moving Bond in the direction they had had Connery take Bond post LAzenby with DAF?

So surely had Cubby and Harry wanted a more serious Bond they wouldn't have employed Rog in the first place. (And please, no one try tell me that Rog in LALD and TNWTGG was serious...)

[zencat]

I'd like to thank Zencat and others here for their kind words about the Dalton issue I wrote.

The LTK censorship piece was very close to my heart - in 1989 I was 12 and devastated not to be able to go and see Licence To Kill in the cinema and it had always puzzled me why BATMAN was granted a 12 and LTK was lumbered with a 15. Now I know the full story!!!

I'm also sorry, Zencat, if I upset you with my comments about Roger! You know what, as a PERSONALITY and a MAN I ADORE him. And I enjoy his films MUCH more than the Brosnans, for example. Roger always did a decent job, I think it's the producers who lost the plot during his era.

Anyways, best wishes everyone - and keep following 007 Magazine - I know GR has lots of exciting stuff in the pipeline.

Luke W.

Hey Luke.

Nothing personal, Luke. I just have to defend my Roger. It's my duty. But I'm happy to hear you like his films better than Brosnans. Me too.

But I really, really loved the your work and it's great to see you here at CBn.

You know, it kills me that you couldn't see LTK when it came out. Did you consider traveling outside the UK to see it? Of course, you were only 12, so I guess that wasn't really an option?

Again, great work.

[Simon]

I have generally the same feelings about Moore but I am not sure the producers were just reflecting Moore's particular concept of Bond and not the other way round.

And, at the end of the day, Moore's style reflected whatever the audiences of the time required of him. The returns testify to that.

Yes, by comparison to todays' realism and violence, Moore's style does not sit very well. But how to tell a 20 year old of today that these films definitely had their audience in a time before they were born and that they will never ever experience these films, 'of the time'.

In 15 years' time, we will once again go down the comedic route, and Moore's films will have a renaissance, a revisiting and a positive reassessment.

[MarkA]

And, at the end of the day, Moore's style reflected whatever the audiences of the time required of him. The returns testify to that.

Well when the box office is adjusted for inflation, the Moore's overall didn't do that well, and in fact towards the end of his time were severely plummeting. In the top ten box office inflation adjusted only Moonraker figures. With five Connery's there are three Brosnan's and one Craig. So artistically and commercially Moore's era for me never stacked up.

[Safari Suit]

Attendance figures I've seen, such as those discussed in this thread, always list LALD and TSWLM topping any Brosnan film, so I'm not sure about that. It's true that the performances of his later films were poor by the standard of the series; the idea that Octopussy "triumphed" against NSNA is a bit of a myth. To some extent this can probably be partially credited to a general trend in moviegoing which also had an effect on the Dalton films.

[zencat]

And, at the end of the day, Moore's style reflected whatever the audiences of the time required of him. The returns testify to that.

Well when the box office is adjusted for inflation, the Moore's overall didn't do that well, and in fact towards the end of his time were severely plummeting. In the top ten box office inflation adjusted only Moonraker figures. With five Connery's there are three Brosnan's and one Craig. So artistically and commercially Moore's era for me never stacked up.

But in relation to other films released at the time, the Moore Bonds were all big hits, always placing in the top 5 or 10 film of the year. You can inflation adjust and selectively compare all you like, but you can't tell me TSWLM wasn't a HUGELY popular and successful film in its day. All the Moore Bond films were an event. I know. I was there!

ROGER RULES!

But isn't this supposed to be a thread about Dalton?

[Safari Suit]

Here was another thread that had some interesting (well, to me) stuff about attendance etc. Lazenby was (is?) the second most profitable of all!

[Simon]

But in relation to other films released at the time, the Moore Bonds were all big hits, always placing in the top 5 or 10 film of the year. You can inflation adjust and selectively compare all you like, but you can't tell me TSWLM wasn't a HUGELY popular and successful film in its day. All the Moore Bond films were an event. I know. I was there!

Yup.

This inflation adjusting lark is a complete waste of time in my view. What happened in the 60s can never be compared to entertainment opportunities in the 'teens'. As you say zencas, compare a Bond with whatever else was successful at its time taking into account reflections of moods, trends, economic conditions of the era.

To illustrate just how pointless this comparing is, cinemas in the Moore era had his Bond films playing solidly for over 3 months - and there were fewer screens in those days than now. Did Brosnan's, do Craig's films play for that long? No. (Probably due to quick DVD turnaround.) But as a measure of success, it could be just as meaningful - to someone. Not me.

Also, I too was there during the Moore era - always a Huge event.

[MarkA]

This inflation adjusting lark is a complete waste of time in my view.

But it is the only way to compare actual numbers that went to a film. Straight box office is even more misleading. You continually get this and that film is the champ box office but it is meaningless unless it is inflation adjusted. The film companies are really just stroking their own egos and kidding themselves a certain film is the most popular ever made. Nonsense.

I know. I was there!

So was I even before you. I was there from YOLT original release onwards. I remember seeing Lazenby on its original release and not worrying at all about the change of Bond because the film was so fantastic. But in the UK to people of my age Moore was the Saint and a TV actor. I was thirteen when LALD was released and crushingly disappointed that Moore was Bond because to me I had known him in the Saint and Persuaders. Connery I first knew as Bond and he was a Movie Star (that was a real distinction, the first Bond never played on TV in the UK until 1975) Lazenby I only ever knew as Bond and to my young eyes he looked like Connery anyway. Moore never did. He wasn't a movie star, he wasn't special, and he was TV. I really do think age and the environment you were bought up in effects how you perceive someone playing the role. Even when Dalton took over he wasn't well known in another role but being older that childlike gut reaction I had to Moore pretending to be, rather than being Bond didn't happen with Dalton. I readily admit my prejudice is coloured by the way I arrived at Moore, and then afterwards by the way he portrayed the part. But that I can’t help. Loved him as a kid on TV though.

[Simon]

Mark,

I enjoyed your take on the various appreciations of ensuing Bond actors. It appears I am seven years younger than you so clearly cannot comment on the Connery era and how his time was appreciated as an event.

However I do take exception with the comment, "But it is the only way to compare actual numbers that went to a film." I maintain, It is Not. And the reason for this is, in this day and age, you have people saying, "Nah, I won't go to see that. I'll wait until it comes out on DVD."

And therein lies in totality, why comparing box office with something that came from an age where there was No other way of seeing the film, not even on TV, is utterly pointless. It exemplifies why I was saying above that trends and environments have to be taken into account, and since they are unquantifiable, one cannot compare.

Maybe, just maybe, one could compare box office receipts of Thunderball, with 'revenues' of Quantum of Solace that include box office, DVD rental and DVD sell through.

Anyone care to entertain that theory??

[doublenoughtspy]

Sorry Mark, but I agree with Simon - inflation based stats aren't a worthwhile comparison.

I do see your point - today's ticket prices are so much higher and it makes it seem like later movies are more popular than the previous ones, when that isn't necessarily the case.

I think the real stat to look at is admissions.

But then again - that factor favors the later films: there are twice as many people on the planet now as their were in 1962 - you've got a much larger audience to pull from than the Connery years had.

But on the other side - there is more entertainment competition - tv/internet/dvd/video games, etc.

I realize that Bond films are a commercial product, but I'm much more interested in the artistry involved. So more people saw Moonraker than OHMSS? It doesn't make it a better film.

Anyway, back to the topic. I love Dalton and I love TLD the way a fat kid loves cake. But putting down Moore to raise Dalton/TLD isn't something I agree with.

The real series change was DAF. As Entertainment Weekly put it, it was the first Roger Moore movie, it just happened to star Sean Connery.

[David Schofield]

So was I even before you. I was there from YOLT original release onwards. I remember seeing Lazenby on its original release and not worrying at all about the change of Bond because the film was so fantastic. But in the UK to people of my age Moore was the Saint and a TV actor. I was thirteen when LALD was released and crushingly disappointed that Moore was Bond because to me I had known him in the Saint and Persuaders. Connery I first knew as Bond and he was a Movie Star (that was a real distinction, the first Bond never played on TV in the UK until 1975) Lazenby I only ever knew as Bond and to my young eyes he looked like Connery anyway. Moore never did. He wasn't a movie star, he wasn't special, and he was TV. I really do think age and the environment you were bought up in effects how you perceive someone playing the role. Even when Dalton took over he wasn't well known in another role but being older that childlike gut reaction I had to Moore pretending to be, rather than being Bond didn't happen with Dalton. I readily admit my prejudice is coloured by the way I arrived at Moore, and then afterwards by the way he portrayed the part. But that I can’t help. Loved him as a kid on TV though.

Pretty similar feelings to MarkA here, though slightly later: my first new Bond was DAF, age 6, Leeds Odeon, the Headrow 1971.

Rog was to me always the villain of the piece. As MarkA suggests, to start with he was not a mysterious movie star like Connery, but a low rent TV star, who, may I suggest, by 1973 might just have had his day??? (To my young mind, Lazenby's even lower-rent background didn't matter - he was just mysterious). Add to that the way Rog looked, far to soft and fleshy compared with the tough-guy arrogance of Connery and Lazenby. And the way Rog played Bond, old, wheezy, overly poncy.

Chuck in the fact that I started to read the books about then and they were just not about anything to do with Rog. Bookend Rog between Connery/Lazenby and Dalton, who believed in the quality of the Fleming books, looked the part and had an acting range, and Rog suffers again. And then John Gardner pops up in 1981 and his Bond is the 'real' thing and an antedote to Rog's intenational playboy joker and it makes it worse.

And finally, as a lesson in the social history of the UK at least, let me ask how it is possible to sell 50+ Rog in the late 70s/early 80s to your teen age mates as the epitome of cool when they're all into the Clash, the Jam and the Pistols? Simple answer: you can't. I daresay, however, a less conventional, Flemingesque tough guy might just have given them a bit of rivalry.

[MarkA]

Pretty similar feelings to MarkA here, though slightly later: my first new Bond was DAF, age 6, Leeds Odeon, the Headrow 1971.

Rog was to me always the villain of the piece. As MarkA suggests, to start with he was not a mysterious movie star like Connery, but a low rent TV star, who, may I suggest, by 1973 might just have had his day??? (To my young mind, Lazenby's even lower-rent background didn't matter - he was just mysterious). Add to that the way Rog looked, far to soft and fleshy compared with the tough-guy arrogance of Connery and Lazenby. And the way Rog played Bond, old, wheezy, overly poncy.

Chuck in the fact that I started to read the books about then and they were just not about anything to do with Rog. Bookend Rog between Connery/Lazenby and Dalton, who believed in the quality of the Fleming books, looked the part and had an acting range, and Rog suffers again. And then John Gardner pops up in 1981 and his Bond is the 'real' thing and an antedote to Rog's intenational playboy joker and it makes it worse.

And finally, as a lesson in the social history of the UK at least, let me ask how it is possible to sell 50+ Rog in the late 70s/early 80s to your teen age mates as the epitome of cool when they're all into the Clash, the Jam and the Pistols? Simple answer: you can't. I daresay, however, a less conventional, Flemingesque tough guy might just have given them a bit of rivalry.

Thank you for that David you have summed it up even more succinctly than I ever good. Really brave with Bond, old, wheezy, overly poncy. I was in my late teens when the late 70's arrived and I was looking at Moore with his flares, no waist and age spots on his hands and thinking is this man my image of the coolest hero around and the answer was a resounding no. He was everything that was wrong with Britain at the time. Safe, bland and kind of beige like those awful Saturday variety shows that clogged up the TV. No other Bond since has been quite so wrong than Moore.

[Simon]

All very entertainingly put, both of you.

But I think zencas is going to suck his nuts back up into his abdomen and spit them out all over his computer upon reading this.

One awaits...

[MarkA]

All very entertainingly put, both of you.

But I think zencas is going to suck his nuts back up into his abdomen and spit them out all over his computer upon reading this.

One awaits...

Ha, ha that I would love to see. I truly think though in Britain we have a different perception of cool than you guys in the States. That's why those Jove paperback covers of the early 80's were so wrong too, and pretty much summed up Moore's take on Bond.

Edited by MarkA, 15 November 2011 - 01:21 PM.